Well, I meant to post a review of this quite a lot earlier, but was unavoidably detained...
I went in hoping for the best and expecting a tremendous misfire. As a lifelong Elm Street fan (1984, bitches!), I have a lot of love for the original movie. I also have a lot of love for the series as a whole, although I can freely admit that almost every entry into the series with the exception of Dream Warriors and Wes Craven's New Nightmare have been garbage.
Freddy's Revenge I can somewhat forgive for it's "I'm possessed by the spirit of Freddy!" business, because the rules about who Freddy Krueger was and what he could (and couldn't) do really hadn't been established at that point.
The Dream Master capitalized on the "dirty old man" aspect of Freddy, but not in a good way. The humor came in and with it, the sinister element began to deteriorate. Of course, it make bank at the theater and the "MTV Freddy" angle proved it was a cash crop, so...I guess I can't too much blame them for making him a one-line zinger by the time The Dream Child came up.
Freddy's Dead was a really, really, really bad episode of Twin Peaks, and based on the layout of Springwood, the characters and the concept of a demented town of adults, anybody familiar with the both series could easily see where Rachel Talalay's main source of influence came from.
Freddy vs. Jason was basically fucked from the start....
That said, I can safely say that "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is the most satisfying entry into the series since Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and the best "in story" film since Dream Warriors.
The prologue sequence in the diner really sets the tone for the whole film - of course, if you're expecting grade A acting performances, you're in for a horrible disappointment (as a lifelong Elm Street fan, I've never went into one of these films expecting THAT). However, the diner sequence is really well done and sufficiently gory for my tastes - we get an introductory overview of our cast and Freddy is quickly revealed to be anything but the dancing goofster of old. Rest assured, this is NOT your father's Freddy. All in all, he does an awesome job and should be extremely proud of himself.
Jackie Earle Haley is definitely the breakout performance of the film. He brings a level of evil, manipulation and sadism to the role that, quite frankly, Robert Englund never achieved with the role after Dream Warriors (and seldom achieved throughout the first three original movies). The introduction of the micro-nap aspect to staying awake adds a bit of realism to the concept of sleep deprivation and, to my mind, made the movie flow a bit faster.
The dream sequences are almost completely CGI, but in the aspect that they ARE dream sequences, I can appreciate that. The special effects considerably trump that of the original (and if you re-watch the original, you can plainly see that the originals haven't held up well over the years...notably the part where Nancy slips into the stairs...).
As far as Nancy herself, my major gripe was that she was a bit more reactive than proactive and allowed her boyfriend to mostly call the shots with saving her; beyond that, I was hoping the score would be a bit more keyboard/electronic influenced like the original was, but that's minor.
As it stands, I thoroughly enjoyed it after making myself leave my preconceived notions at the door. It's not groundbreaking work and the original still stands up as the best Elm Street movie of all time, but it's worth the price of admission and definitely worth checking out, as long as you can keep an open mind about it.
Grade: B
(Imapus, you can mail me the money)
I went in hoping for the best and expecting a tremendous misfire. As a lifelong Elm Street fan (1984, bitches!), I have a lot of love for the original movie. I also have a lot of love for the series as a whole, although I can freely admit that almost every entry into the series with the exception of Dream Warriors and Wes Craven's New Nightmare have been garbage.
Freddy's Revenge I can somewhat forgive for it's "I'm possessed by the spirit of Freddy!" business, because the rules about who Freddy Krueger was and what he could (and couldn't) do really hadn't been established at that point.
The Dream Master capitalized on the "dirty old man" aspect of Freddy, but not in a good way. The humor came in and with it, the sinister element began to deteriorate. Of course, it make bank at the theater and the "MTV Freddy" angle proved it was a cash crop, so...I guess I can't too much blame them for making him a one-line zinger by the time The Dream Child came up.
Freddy's Dead was a really, really, really bad episode of Twin Peaks, and based on the layout of Springwood, the characters and the concept of a demented town of adults, anybody familiar with the both series could easily see where Rachel Talalay's main source of influence came from.
Freddy vs. Jason was basically fucked from the start....
That said, I can safely say that "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is the most satisfying entry into the series since Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and the best "in story" film since Dream Warriors.
The prologue sequence in the diner really sets the tone for the whole film - of course, if you're expecting grade A acting performances, you're in for a horrible disappointment (as a lifelong Elm Street fan, I've never went into one of these films expecting THAT). However, the diner sequence is really well done and sufficiently gory for my tastes - we get an introductory overview of our cast and Freddy is quickly revealed to be anything but the dancing goofster of old. Rest assured, this is NOT your father's Freddy. All in all, he does an awesome job and should be extremely proud of himself.
Jackie Earle Haley is definitely the breakout performance of the film. He brings a level of evil, manipulation and sadism to the role that, quite frankly, Robert Englund never achieved with the role after Dream Warriors (and seldom achieved throughout the first three original movies). The introduction of the micro-nap aspect to staying awake adds a bit of realism to the concept of sleep deprivation and, to my mind, made the movie flow a bit faster.
The dream sequences are almost completely CGI, but in the aspect that they ARE dream sequences, I can appreciate that. The special effects considerably trump that of the original (and if you re-watch the original, you can plainly see that the originals haven't held up well over the years...notably the part where Nancy slips into the stairs...).
As far as Nancy herself, my major gripe was that she was a bit more reactive than proactive and allowed her boyfriend to mostly call the shots with saving her; beyond that, I was hoping the score would be a bit more keyboard/electronic influenced like the original was, but that's minor.
As it stands, I thoroughly enjoyed it after making myself leave my preconceived notions at the door. It's not groundbreaking work and the original still stands up as the best Elm Street movie of all time, but it's worth the price of admission and definitely worth checking out, as long as you can keep an open mind about it.
Grade: B
(Imapus, you can mail me the money)
Comment